tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 14, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT
announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. clerk. please call the first item. >> clerk: agenda item one is a hearing to consid [agenda item read]. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. great. do we have the a.l.u. here? >> good morning, board. officer simonson, alcohol liaison unit. there are no letters of protest, no letters of support. they are located in plot 706, which is considered a low-crime area.
they are in census tract 402, which is considered a high saturation area. richmond police station has no opposition. recommend approval on the following conditions. number one, sales, service of alcoholic beverages shall be allowed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. petitioner shall monitor the area under their control in order to prevent loitering of persons on their property or adjacent property, and third no distilled beverages should be sold in a bottle less than .15
liter. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. is there any public comment? >> thank you. we keep the neighborhood nice and clean, you know, try to monitor if there's anything wrong, and contact the police, and thank you very much. >> supervisor mandelman: any comments or questions from my colleagues? so thank you. and is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, public comment is now closed. so colleagues, i want to thank the applicant for working with supervisor fewer's office, and with the a.l.u. i think if anyone has comments, concerns, questions, we're at the point to direct the clerk to find a resolution and seeing
no objection, we will approve that. thank you. clerk, please call the next item. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor mandelman: go ahead. >> good morning, supervisors. museum of ice cream have approved for a type 42 license, and if approved, this would allow them to sell asite beer and wine. there are zero letters of protest, zero letters of support. central station has no opposition to this license.
a.l.u. recommendation approval with the following conditions: sales, services, and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. sunday through wednesday, and 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. thursday through saturday. lastly, the sale of chafralcoh beverages off the premises is prohibited. on march 30, 2019, the applicant agreed to the above recommended conditions from our community. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: yes. what kind of community outreach did you conduct? >> the applicant does their
mailers and community outreach, and they talk to their own community. i don't want to speak on behalf of them, so if they want to come up here and address it, they can. >> supervisor walton: the question is addressed to who's presenting on this item. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. so we'll let the a.l.u. -- thank you for your report, and we will invite up the applicant. >> good afternoon. my name is minesh vorem, the founder of the museum of ice cream. we are so proud to be a part of the san francisco community. today, we would like to ask for a continuance of this hearing so we can continue to do more outreach. we have been here announcing 400,000 visitors.
we're a startup that have taken a different approach, not technology. we're trying to transform main street. we're owned by 80% women. it's all employee owned. the average age of our investors is 25 years old. when we first launched, we wanted to be here three to six months. since then, we've seen 400,000 visitors from 82 countries. we did a get out the vote rally with mayor london breed. we've supported over 25 nonprofits in the area and every month get over 100 requests from local p.t.a.s, local charities, and giving them tickets to experience the museum. we have been continuing our
outreach the community, but we would like the opportunity to make sure that the city is continuing to support us. i do want to add one final statement here which is why this is important not just for the city of san francisco but for the entire country. the museum of ice cream is not necessarily about ice cream, it's about joy and happiness. we are in one of the most high crime areas in the city. in the first three months, we reported over 100 assaults, issues in the city, drug issues, and our visit -- our guests and our employees which are over 300 people that we've hired across the city have to work here wearing pink outfits, going to b.a.r.t., and the police ensure that we're safe. that saying, we still have to close our doors early in the
week in the evenings to make sure our employees can be escorted to b.a.r.t. it's critical to our employees, and it's critical we still attract families. it's critical for us to bring new people to the city and continuing to hire people, young people around the city who don't have the opportunities to get high-tech jobs and we employ currently over 100 employees in the city. for us to continue to do business in the city, to continue to stay in one of the highest rent locations in san francisco, businesses like us who are transforming main street need the support of the city, and we ask that the city continue to support us. my final statement, as i said, we are paying higher rent than we're paying in new york city,
higher than we will pay in london, higher than we will pay in singapore. this is the foundation of our business and the foundation of our startup. we hope that we have the opportunity to continue to serve the city, continue to serve the nonprofits, and the amazing partners we have in city hall, by allowing this ancillary experience. we hope you guys give us the opportunity to continue to do business in san francisco so that we can stay and be a profitable business in the city. >> supervisor walton: with all due respect, i just want to be clear, i want to know what kind of outreach you've done, and i haven't heard that.
>> so the outreach to our community? yeah. we've reached out to all 25 of the nonprofit and charity groups. union square bid has already filed a letter of support. we will be filing all of these letters from dozens of organizations, local businesses and local nonprofits that are supporting us, you know, with this continuance. >> supervisor walton: and you have letters right now? >> i have the letters from the union square bid. >> supervisor walton: but not the dozens of letters that you are referring to? >> i can send them to you. >> supervisor, i want to add this. just recently, i brought the team to a local banquet in the district. i reached out to chinatown community development center,
and also c.y.c. we're not just going to limit it to the district. there's no reason why this business can't do something in every district in san francisco. every kid that wants to do something, they'll get an ask. we can provide you the list of all the charities that we've given to, and then, obviously, we can do more. >> supervisor walton: so are you here speaking for c.y.c. and ccdc, because typically, if they have concerns, they come here on their own. >> i worked closely with them in the past, and i don't see why they wouldn't support their community organizations. having 25 kid coming in from c.y.c. and ccdc -- >> supervisor mandelman: if you could identify yourself for the
record. >> i'm stephan kaslan. i'm a consultant to the applicant. >> supervisor mandelman: yes. and i cut you off, supervisor walton. good? okay. thank you for that. and we will now -- i believe we do have public comment on this, so we'll open public comment. i have bruce livingston and jessica lum. there may be others. if folks will lineup on this side of the room. public comment speakers will have two minutes. we ask that you state your first and last name clearly and speak right into the microphone. those who prepared statement are asked to leave a copy with the clerk for inclusion in the file, and no booing or
applause, and in the interest of time, we ask that you don't represent statements. >> i'm bruce livingston, for alcohol justice, an alcohol watchdog. first, we have to be careful of serving of alcohol. it is not nothing to have alcohol in the presence of youth. and having a bar at a mezzanine at an entirely youth oriented venue is just ludicrous. it's a great business model to pay for the high rent to get a location at one grant street. i know that well. i've been banking there before it closed. but sure, it's convenient. it's not necessary, absolutely not necessary, and it's uncalled for. so i have some quick questions.
is the mezzanine visible to the underage patrons to the museum. is it that the parents would sip wine while their kids are below? is the mezzanine a.d.a. accessible? frankly, you know nothing about the interior of this building based on the submissions by moic. and of course, nonprofits want to be agreeable so they can have events and fundraisers there so they want alcohol. can i just ask one question -- it's actually kind of complicated, but with this kind of license, liquor can be circulated outside the premises. it's not just on sale. we know they want to have
events still 12 events till 12:00 or 1:00 in the morning -- >> clerk: mr. chair -- next speaker, please. >> supervisor mandelman: next speaker. >> my name's dan galvan. i live at bush street at mesa. i know there's a high crime area there. there's a high concentration of liquor sales and different venues to begin it. i thought it was an architecturally significant building to turn it into a museum. it seems to me that they're sneaking a bar into an ice cream parlor.
when i was a kid and go to tahoe with my parents, and they went into a casino, they'd see me and tell my dad to get me out of there. if the kids are down stairs and having ice cream and having a good time, and the parents are upstairs having a drink, it's kind of an incongruous situation. i don't think we need anymore bars in that area, and i don't think the yerba buena council, the people who patrol that, cleanup the garbage and the needles and everything, i don't think they need more of a strain or anything. thanks for hearing me. >> supervisor mandelman: next speaker. >> my name is jessica lauman.
i'm with the san francisco travel association. i'm here to voice my support for the museum's application for permits? the museum has been an attraction not just for local residents, but for regional and international visitors? last year, we welcome 26 million visitors. the more we can create and enhance attractions, the better it is for our city, and we support the museum's efforts to grow and support san francisco. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is samuel ortiz, san francisco latino democratic club, and i'm here to oppose
this at grant avenue for a number of different reasons. first off, we're associating alcohol with ice cream. when you were putting this new bar into a location that serves primarily under 20 year olds, what kind of message that you are sending to our young folks? that it is okay to be around alcohol, that it's okay to be around sweet alcohol. you are actually incorporating sweet into these alcohol-flafrd pop drinks. also, this is a team hangout spot. we need to talk about the accessibility. providing an alcohol license to a kid friendly venue is not a
good idea. we heard this before. the only thing that they've essentially changed is changing the hours from 11:00 to 12:00 a.m., which is sending the wrong kind of message to them. they have a five-year lease. the code 42 permit vastly increases the value of the property, so they could either sell the license for a much higher price. going to the chronicle on kcbs is not community outreach. they've already started construction on their bar called the dive-in. there's no -- >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. thank you. public comment -- or your public comment on this is over. thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to
speak on this item? >> for children, ice cream is one of the last things that can be made in different ways that can be used the way we used to give vicks vapor rub to our kids. it's a thought. we can't get menthol like that anymore, and ice cream is something that offers an alternate ti alternative to parents. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. is there anyone else who would like to speak on this issue? seeing no one, public comment is closed. supervisors, i have spoken to
supervisor peskin's office. supervisor peskin does not believe that the transfer of the license will serve public convenience and necessity and has requested that we pass a resolution to that effect. he also -- his office has also stated that they don't believe that any purpose would be served by granting the continuance that's been requested. so unless there are comments or questions, i will ask the clerk to prepare a resolution finding that the transfer of this license will not serve public convenience and necessity, requesting that the transfer be denied, and we will take that without objection. all right. thank you. >> clerk: and now that the resolution is prepared, will we send that resolution to the board? >> supervisor mandelman: and we'll do that without objection. >> clerk: thank you.
>> supervisor mandelman: all right. mr. clerk, please call the next item. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor mandelman: great. and we have been joined by supervisor vallie brown. this is your measure. >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair mandelman, and thank you for the opportunity to join the panel as a guest today as brick and mortars accepting cash. the legal tender law is a law i wish we did not have to have on the books. i wish all san franciscans had the privileges that come with a bank account and credit card. it is estimated that as much as
50% of latin and african american households were unbanked. the most common reason was not having enough money to keep in the account. other reasons cited as a distrust of banks, concerns over privacy, and high fees. we also know that denial of access to goods and services for cashless businesses shut out the young people who have not established creditor haven't opened a bank account yet. immigrants who cannot open a bank account due to the real fears of the federal government, seniors who cannot transaction to credit or digital payment modes. homeless folks who may find after scraping together enough money for a bite to eat are denied because they don't have
cash. the disabled who are often too poor to maintain a bank account. the purpose of this ordinance is to make sure that all the city residents, including those who lack access to other forms of payment are able to participate in the city's economic life by paying cash for goods and many services. it requires all brick and mortar businesses within the city and county to accept cash for any transaction involving the purchase of any tangible good or service except for professional services. if the business would accept one or more other forms of payment and the customer presents at the place of business. many of you have read in the last couple days that amazon go will begin to accept cash in the stores after folks like me and others in the community
correctly called out the discrimination and elite nature of the current business model which requires customers to have bank accounts and a smart phone to purchase any items. they are also looking at ways to accept snap benefits from customers. i was happy that amazon listened to communities and the city and other cities around the nation who called out the inequity around this and solved the problem. the division of weights and measures will enforce this ordinance and hear this in the same manner that it does management of oversight of point of sale systems in the city. they will ensure businesses are compliant when inspecting the point of sale systems and ensure folks are complying.
make no mistake, the process for appeals is well established. the division is well equipped to handle appeals that come their way. over the last several weeks, i've worked with my colleagues on the work and representatives in the communities and representatives of business interests. out of those meetings, i have made some changes to the legislation. we created an exemption for bills with services that provide professional services. for example, accountants, architects, attorneys, engineers, financial advisors, insurance agents, and software developers. some representatives of businesses asked for a more definitive list and/or more exemptions, but i do not believe, and i hope that you will not believe that their asks are nothing more than a tactic to stall or create additional carveouts for the
businesses they represent. and most of my colleagues that know me know that i don't like carveouts, but in this instance, i'm glad that we could find a compromise that helps businesses without going against the intent of the law. unlike brick and mortar businesses, types of businesses like food trucks cannot put security protocols in place to make them safe. and today, i'm also introducing four amendments to address the additional concerns brought to the community members, business leaders, and small business commissions. the first will prevent for bid businesses from charging an additional fee or surcharges when a customer wants to make a cash purchase. let me be clear, when you come to pay cash in a business, there's no way i want a
business to charge you 5% extra for accepting cash, so this is one of those things -- the amendments i put in place. the second change is the operational date of the ordinance from 30 to 90 days so cashless businesses can prepare and make their businesses welcoming to all. some have asked for an operational date that is much later, but i know 90 days is more than enough time to change banking procedures, train staff and install any security systems business owners feel they need to do so. the third place is a cap, $5,000 of the amount of cash a business must accept in a single transaction. this came from the small business commission, which i really appreciate, and would like to thank them for making this recommendation. finally, some folks asked for me to include a sunset date on the ordinance. as i said -- as i said at the time, creating a sunset date
that is not tied to data would be irresponsible and could produce serious consequences later down the line. however, i hope this ordinance is not necessary in the future. instead, i'm proposing an amendment which would require the office of the treasurer to submit a report to the board of supervisors, the mayor, in 2026 on the findings of the federal deposit insurance corp. to 2025 survey of the unbanked and underbanked household. if the bank determined this ordinance is no longer needed, it can amend the code, and i hope that's the case. so i'm asking the -- the public safety commission to accept the amendments, and thank you very much. >> supervisor mandelman: thank
you, supervisor brown. if there are no comments or questions from my colleagues, we will take public comment on this item. i believe we have regina dick andrizzi here from the office of small business. if there's anybody else that wishes to speak, please lineup on the far side of the room. >> good morning, chair mandelman, supervisors. regina dick-andrizzi, director of the small business commission. we heard this on monday, april 8, and hopefully you did receive the commission's recommendation. if not, i have copies for you. i want to first thank supervisor brown for bringing forward this legislation. the commission does support the intent of the legislation and the equity component of it. most small businesses still accept cash, so the majority of
small businesses are in compliance with this regulation. and i also want to thank supervisor brown and her staff, derek remski for the amendments that supervisor brown read out today, some from the small business commission. i want to take a moment to elaborate on. the commission the -- on the second one, the first one supervisor brown has adopted into the legislation. and that was providing the weights and measures commissioner the ability to -- i think what supervisor brown has said was that many businesses have come forward with ideas of exemptions, and we may not know all the unforeseen consequences of this where there may merit some
exemptions, and to setup some administrative procedures that allows the weights and measures commission to possibly give consideration under extraordinary circumstances, not as a way out of this legislation. and just to use as an example, the legacy business rules and regulations, any time that we change this, we have -- >> supervisor mandelman: could you finish your thought on that first item and mention the second item coming out for recommendation. >> the second recommendation is to setup a procedure where the san francisco develops some guidelines where some businesses may be exemption from the situational regulation. as an example, the legacy
business program, any business that wanted to adopt has to be submitted to the board of supervisors. if we don't receive a response in 30 days, they're considered adopted. so that's an example of which the board of supervisors can have some input and evaluate the administrative guidelines that the weights and measures commissioner could setup. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. deedee workman from the san francisco chamber of commerce. the chamber has no position on this legislation. we do understand the reasons that supervisor brown has introduced, and we agree with the he caniequity reasoning be them. i do want to thank the supervisor for exempting certain professional services as well as popups and mobile and vehicle businesses and so on. we think that's reasonable and
prudent. we also really appreciate pushing back the operative date to 90 days after enactment. our main concern is that businesses, especially small businesses have the time and the resources that they need to come into appliancompliance be lot of folks that don't accept cash are going to have to establish labor training, security systems, and other things. so we just want to make sure that everybody has a chance to come into compliance, and i'm hoping that 90 days would enable them to do that. we would appreciate maybe a little more clarity on the enforcement section and the appeals process. we understand that's under the county sealer. we would appreciate a little bit more clarity on that. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon.
my name's edmund castro. i'm with senor sesig. we are supportive of the equity part of this legislation for sure. i just wanted to mention i am definitely in support of the office of small business's recommendation to have some sort of review to exempt in certain circumstances. you know, too often this lemgs lation passed and it's cut and dry, and then, we find that there's an issue that can't be overturned with some of these businesses in our community, so i do support the office of small business's recommendation, as well. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor brown? >> supervisor brown: yes. i just want to address a few questions.
with the 90 days, we had actually put on the first draft of the legislation 30 days, and then, we did have businesses reaching out to us, including amazon, saying 90 days would work. it was actually. i had -- supervisor fewer had a resident that went into a cafe in supervisor stefani's district, nanoosh, and he went in and wanted to pay with cash and they didn't accept cash. he said i can come back and pay, but he went into the small business commission and said i feel discriminated. when they went to nanoosh, they
sent a letter apologizing, and within two days, they turned it around. they accept cash. so i feel when businesses want to do this and they realize they need to do this, it can be a fast turnaround, so that was an example that i saw a restaurant that came out and said we're sorry. we did not mean to discriminate. within two or three days, they're accepting cash. and as far as the question how this is going to work as far as, you know, enforcement, is the same as if you go into a business, they overcharge you, and then, you make a complaint. it's that same kind of enforcement and how they will check it out. and then, there's chances to appeal and appeal for the business, so there is a very -- very good process for this to be able to -- if you feel like you were, you know, put in this
position wrongly, to appeal it. and then as -- and thank you for coming to talk about the food trucks. i totally understand that, and so that's why we exempted some of those kind of businesses. but if you do go -- we've seen trucks be successful. if you go into a brick and mortar business, you will be required to accept cash. as far as putting a bunch of exemptions in -- and like i said, i don't like to put exemptions and carveouts because i'm going to have that department always battling coming in and saying well, i should be an exempt. i think as we move forward through this legislation in the board of supes, we can always bring amendments to change it if we see something that isn't working or a loophole that we
didn't see as is coming forward. i thank you everybody for working with me. and yes, my staff, doug remski who worked really hard on this legislation, opened up, listening to my colleagues, the business community, want to thank him. and if anyone has any other questions or concerns, my office is always open. thank you. >> supervisor mandelman: supervisor brown. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair mandelman. i want to thank supervisor brown for creating this. this is something that i saw as city clerk. it is a fact that we did not
get away from and something we have to address. in a city with a wide income gulf, i think it would be unfair to exclude this group when buying every day basics. i did have some concerns with the legislation, and i want to thank supervisor brown for we are willingness to work with me, to address some of the amendments, the look back provision so we can revisit the need of the resolution, so we can take a look back and adjust as necessary in the future. also, adding the cap on the maximum amount of cash a business is required to accept in a single transaction is important. i felt that requiring a business to accept large sums of cash, say, for an expensive piece of jewelry or something could pose security risks and place an unfair burden. i think the limit of $5,000
does not place an undue burden on our businesses but considers the public. i want to make sure that businesses have adequate time to come into compliance, and i want to thank you for sharing the story of our awesome merchant in district two that was willing to make those changes to readily and because he saw the injustice of it. so again, thank you, supervisor brown for bringing forward this legislation. i truly believe it's about equity for some of our most vulnerable populations in san francisco who do not have access to banking or credit cards, and i'm happy to support this legislation today. >> supervisor mandelman: great. seeing no further comments from colleagues, thank you, supervisor brown, for this legislation. you've offered some of the amendments today. i'll move that we accept those amendments, and we will take that without objection. because those amendments are
substantive, we'll need to continue this item until our next -- until the following meeting, so i'm going to move that we continue this item until april 25 as amended, and we'll take that without objection, as well. great. thank you. mr. clerk, please call the next item. [agenda item read]. >> supervisor mandelman: great. we have been joined by supervisor haney. >> supervisor haney: thank you, chair mandelman and community members. before i start, i do have some amendments to the resolution that i'd like to have passed around.
they're fairly simple amendments, and i -- basically, they're minor, and they simply substitute any reference to safe injection site or safe consumption site with the term "overdose prevention site" or "overdose prevention program." they're consistent with the state legislation, where they've changed the name to overdose prevention program or overdose prevention site. i want to thank you for having the opportunity to support california state assembly bill 362. this approach towards harm reduction we here in san francisco know firsthand works
because our city is suffering from a public health crisis with the opioid epidemic. today. we'll hear from a number of experts from the department of public health, from the drug users union, from the drug policy alliance. they will explain what i think most people in san francisco know, which is that we have a crisis in our community and on our streets and we need urgent and bold action now. they'll show statistics that show that san francisco has an estimated 24,500 people that inject drugs and because of the lack of opportunity to operate overdose prevention programs, we are sadly in a situation where we have approximately 100 deaths a year as a result of overdose. given these high numbers, it is
absolutely imperative that we change our strategy. this is not just a holistic approach, it saves lives. it just makes financial sense. we'll learn that opening one injection site could help alleviate $3.5 million in health care costs. although the first attempt at an overdose site was vetoed by governor brown, we're hoping that this time, the situation is different, and we want to stand in strong support with supervisor susan eggeman, supervisor scott wiener in gaining support for assembly bill 362. we think we can get this done and also make sure that we can make it happen immediately if
this bill gets passed. there's an understanding that this bill should be passed, and let's get ready to do it. you're going to hear about this bill and what san francisco is doing to prepare and what the next steps would be. before i turn the floor over to our presenters, i want to thank all of them for speaking in support of the bill today. i also want to thank the leadership of the san francisco aids foundation for mobilizing the community to attend and support our efforts today. so the first speaker that i'd like to bring up is eileen longhorn from department of public health.
>> so thank you. good morning. my name's eileen lofgren, and i'm the drug user community based health programs coordinator. i want to thank you for your time and the opportunity to support a.b. 362 which could help address a public health crisis that we're seeing out on our streets. in spring 2017, then supervisor breed introduced a resolution urging the department of public health to convene a safe injection services task force
to investigate opening a safe injection services in san francisco and to make policy recommendations. there were 15 members on that task force. each seat possessed expertise from researchers, doctors, community members, service providers. today i'd like to present some data that will cover injection drug use in san francisco, overdose, and operating a safe injection service, and then i'm happy to answer any questions at the end. as supervisor haney said, there's an estimated 24,500 injection users in the city. that number's been steadily going up, and this is just a number that we know of. we continue to see overdoses from heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl poisoning. so people who inject drugs primarily living or hangout in the tenderloin, south of market, the bayview, and i
think that that's very clear as we walk-through our neighborhoods in the city. so -- oh, i should add that people who inject drugs are susceptible to a lot of different issues such as hiv, hepatitis c, overdose, and just the vulnerabilities of being out on the street and injecting drugs in unsafe, unsterile environment. we continue to see overdoses from heroin and methamphetamine, especially because of fentanyl poisoning. overdose deaths in san francisco have been steady since 2006 and that's because we're doing such a great job with our community providers getting narcan or naloxone into the hands of people who use drugs. from these numbers, you can see
that the numbers of reversals are about 1300, and that's the number of overdoses that were reversed because of narcan. unfortunately, we don't see the other deaths in other jurisdictions nationally, but we feel a safe injection site or safe injection services would be another opportunity to engage this vulnerable population. there are several different models of safe injection services. these are facilities where someone would go with their preobtained drugs, and then they'd be able to inject in a safe environment. they'd be given supplies to inject, they'd be able to have a sink, an opportunity to wash their hands, clean the injection site and just kind of chill out before they went back out on the streets. so the different models are integrated, and that's the model that was most supported by our task force, and that that means is it would include
services, which is really key to have other services involved in addition to the safe injection services. there's also specialized models which would be just a stand-alone safe injection site, or mobile, which would be like a van, but the ideal model that we would see would be integrated with services included. so as the supervisor mentioned, there are potential benefits for safe injection services in san francisco. we were really fortunate to have dr. alex krall as one of the members of the safe injection services task force, and he did the analysis of what one 13-booth services site would look like in san francisco. and ultimately, the net savings were approximately $3.5 million. and that's by providing a safe,
clean environment for people to inject, then, it would cut down on the risks of bacterial infections or e.r. visits that currently are happening when people are having to inject outside. safe injection services are -- promote safer injection practices and are able to reach the most vulnerable populations that are out on the streets, injecting. being able to safe $3.5 million and reach this very vulnerable population is key, so that's why we're in support of ab-362. thank you.
>> and we have laura thomas from the drug policy alliance. >> so i'm laura thomas, deputy state director for the drug policy alliance. good morning, supervisors, and thank you for introducing this and taking up this issue. san francisco has the unique historical role when it comes to the war on drugs. in the 1870's, the supervisors passed a law prohibiting smoking opium. it was a form of racial control, targeting the chinese community who were smoking o n opium, but it never made illegal taking opium bills which were available in a
pharmacy. i'm amazed at the multiple plays that san francisco has worked to address the crisis as well well as using multiple different names, a place where people take their preobtained substances and are able to use them in a safe, stable, sterile, welcoming location with access to a number of different services while they're there. in 2007, a group of us organized a symposium on this
topic, coordinated with the san francisco department of public health. through that, we talked about a number of the different issues related to suppervised consumption services and the need for something like that here. since then, we've continued to reach out, and at this point, while for years, i felt like i was one of the few people talking about this topic, it's become accepted widespread. this board last year voted on this same resolution in support of assembly bill 186 as well as the creation of the task force that you heard about from eileen. [please stand by]
>> we have a high rate of depression, anxiety, self-hatred, suicide and suicide attempts. and it's because we're often rejected owe so aggressively, not only in the rest of the world, but also in our own community. so substances are available and around because we rely on them to get through our daily lives, but mostly we need them to lower our guards, lower our inhibitions, for example, enough to be able to do this thing that our culture tells us to